Tag Archives: meal periods

The Ninth Circuit’s Request That the California Supreme Court Clarify Meal and Rest Period Requirements May Have a Tremendous Impact Upon Employers

Given the prevalence of wage-hour class actions filed against California employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from time to time asks the California Supreme Court to clarify certain California wage-hour laws. Last week, the Ninth Circuit asked again in Cole v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., seeking clarification on the following two questions:

Read more

Read full article

$102 Million Wage Statement Award Against Wal-Mart Will Likely Lead To More Wage Statement Class Actions In California

While it may be true that employees rarely even look at their wage statements, there is one group of persons who certainly do – plaintiffs’ lawyers.  Or, more precisely, California plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Read more

Read full article

California Court of Appeal Holds That An Employee’s “Imprecise Evidence” Can Provide a Basis for Damages When an Employer Does Not Keep Accurate Records of Hours Worked – But That an Employer is Not Liable for Missed Meal Periods of Which It Was Unaware

On December 12, 2018, in Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC, the California Court of Appeal held that if an employer fails to keep accurate records of an employee’s work hours, even “imprecise evidence” by the employee “can provide a sufficient basis for damages.”

Read more

Read full article

California Court of Appeal Upholds Meal Period Waiver in Collective Bargaining Agreement

On August 13, 2018, in Ehret v. WinCo Foods, the California Court of Appeal held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) regarding employees’ meal periods during shifts lasting between five and six hours effectively waived employees’ rights under California Labor Code section 512. In so holding, the Court held that the waiver in question passed the “clear and unmistakable” standard used to determine whether a provision in a CBA is intended to waive a statutorily protected right. Although WinCo argued that the “clear and unmistakable” standard only applies to waivers of “non-negotiable” rights, not “negotiable” rights like a meal break for shifts between five and six hours, the Court avoided that question and found that, even assuming that the standard applies to waivers of any statutory right, negotiable or non-negotiable, the waiver in the WinCo CBA was “clear and unmistakable.”

Read More

Read full article

California Court of Appeal Holds That “Joint Employers” Are Not Vicariously Liable For Each Other’s Alleged Meal Period Violations Continue Reading…

In a case of first impression that may have a significant impact upon wage-hour class actions in California, the California Court of Appeal has held that “joint employers” are not vicariously liable for each other’s alleged meal period violations. 

Read more

Read full article

California Court of Appeal Reverses Previous Decision and Affirms the Use of Second Meal Period Waivers for Healthcare Employers

Kevin SullivanA little more than two years ago, we wrote about how a California Court of Appeal’s decision exposed healthcare employers to litigation if they relied upon IWC Wage Order 5 for meal period waivers. That decision was Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (“Gerard I”), where the Court of Appeal concluded that IWC Wage Order 5 was partially invalid to the extent it authorized second meal period waivers on shifts over 12 hours. Much has happened since then.

Read full article

The Third Circuit Adopts Predominant Benefit Test For Meal Periods, Leaving The Ninth Circuit As The Sole Holdout

PostThe Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently joined the chorus of Circuits adopting the pro-employer “predominant benefit test” when weighing the compensability of meal periods under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  As a result, the Ninth Circuit is the lone Circuit to apply a different standard, opting to follow the U.S. Department of Labor regulations providing that an “employee must be completely relieved from duty” in order for a meal period to be deemed bona fide and thus not compensable. 

Read full article